This website http://www.14studies.org/question.html contains analyses of the fourteen studies used to support the idea that the pediatric vaccines currently in use are safe and effective. The authors examine the financial conflicts of interest concerning those who funded, directed, interpreted, (ghost)wrote, and marketed these 14 studies, and exposes serious flaws in the conclusions.

"By 6 months of age most American children receive 19 vaccines through 3 visits to the doctor. It’s worth noting that many [actually, nowadays, virtually all] kids also receive a birth dose of Hepatitis B, boosting this number to 20 vaccines.

So, of the first 20 shots given to kids, how many have been studied for their relationship to autism? The answer may surprise you: ZERO. That’s right, because only one vaccine, the MMR, has ever been studied for its relationship to autism. The MMR is a vaccine first administered to American children at 13 months of age.

But what about the 2, 4, and 6 month well-baby visits where children receive so many vaccines? The truth is they have never been studied or considered, so no one has any idea. This would be like trying to identify the source of a plane crash, suspecting mechanical failure, solely analyzing one of the wings, and then declaring the entire airplane free of culpability. But, that’s exactly what has happened.

Having spent the time to critically read every study produced to "prove" vaccines don’t cause autism, we were dumbfounded by their inadequacy. We find the comments public officials make about these studies to be even more absurd and unsupportable. Consider, from the studies, some of the actual questions that were asked:

Q: Do children receiving more thimerosal in their vaccines have different neurological outcomes from children receiving less thimerosal in their vaccines?

Q: Are autism rates different for children who received 62.5 mcg or 137.5 mcg of mercury?

Q: Did children who all received DTP vaccine with thimerosal have higher or lower rates of developmental disorders based on when they got the shots?

Q: Does the use of RhoGam shots during pregnancy have a correlation with autism?

These 5 examples above come from 5 of the most commonly listed studies cited as "proof" that "vaccines do not cause autism." Yet, not one of them comes close to addressing this issue or answering the question we all really care about that goes something like this:

Our children receive 36 vaccines by the time they are five, including 20 by their first birthday. Is the administration of so many vaccines causing autism in certain children?

That question, so important to the health of our children and our nation, has never been asked, so it cannot yet be answered. Please look at the "fourteen studies" and see for yourself if you agree with our assessment."

This website was compiled by the founders of Generation Rescue, Jenny McCarthy’s autism organization. Generation Rescue is a parent-founded and parent-led non-profit organization with more than 1,000 parent volunteers all over the world.

The Generation Rescue website provides a wealth of information about autism. Please consider taking the time to learn more about: biomedical intervention, finding a doctor, finding a rescue angel, learning about the success stories of others, and learning about vaccinating safely.

"The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a private non-profit501(c)(3)advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines.[1] The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a child.Michael Specter has described the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.""

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences). Vaccines save lives.

"The National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is a private non-profit501(c)(3)advocacy group which questions the safety and efficacy of commonly used vaccines.[1] The group was founded in 1982 by parents who blamed routine vaccination for the illness or death of a child.Michael Specter has described the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children.""

If people are injured by vaccines, how would you suggest an unbiased way to both report the reactions and advocate for those who are injured, against a government that systematically looks the other way and denies the injuries?

Would a group supporting concentration camp survivors be considered biased or unbiased, by your definition?

How exactly can you find comparing survivors of the holocaust to a not for profit advocacy group founded by persons who blame vaccines for the injury or death of their children appropriate and relevant to this discussion.

How exactly can you find comparing survivors of the holocaust to a not for profit advocacy group founded by persons who blame vaccines for the injury or death of their children appropriate and relevant to this discussion.

I'm glad you asked that question.

I'm not comparing survivors of the holocaust to anything.

I'm comparing an advocacy group supporting holocaust survivors--who had to deal with a government looking the other way as they were mistreated--with an advocacy group supporting people injured by vaccines--who have to deal with a government looking the other way as they are mistreated.

Well this thread turned itself into Goodwin's Rule quicker than expected (for those unfamiliar, this is a comment made by a man called Mike Goodwin that all internet discussions will eventually end up with someone comparing someone's beliefs to Hitler or the Nazi's!).

My comments that NVIC are a biased source of information were based on the last sentence of the segment I quoted:

"Michael Specter has described the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children."

That's what doesn't sound unbiased. I'll say it again "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America" is not going to provide you with a fair picture weighing the pros and cons of vaccination.

I included the background about who founded the organization out of interest.

And I am actually speechless than anyone would honestly compare the millions of doctors across the world who provide vaccinations to save children from uneccessary and deadly diseases to Nazi's running concentration camps. I can only resort to point out this post:

(which I admit has a fairly inflammatory title, but is well worth a read unless you're happy to believe in a mass conspiricy).

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences). Vaccines save lives.

I don't think there is any unbiased information about vaccines out there.

NVIC's mission is concerned with vaccine safety and to educate about informed consent.

Quote:

As an independent clearinghouse for information on diseases and vaccines, NVIC does not advocate for or against the use of vaccines. We support the availability of all preventive health care options, including vaccines, and the right of consumers to make educated, voluntary health care choices.

I think it is a big mistake to label them "antivax." I think it is a big mistake for pro-vax side to label anyone wanting to delay hep B or skip chicken pox as "anti-vax" and "conspiracy theorists." I think this is only alienating parents who want to know more about vax. You want to select/delay a little and then experience the vehemency of mainstream medical establish, I really think this encourages more suspicion. Even worse, just asking questions or wanting to learn about vax ingredients, history, safety - seems like just asking makes you "anti-vax."

I think NVIC's site has a lot of good information, well presented. Personally, I don't find the stance that they are telling parents to do one thing or another in regards to vax decision. But then again, I'm biased, and so is everyone else here.

Yes. Vaccines are totally like mass-scale genocide. Except f***ing NOT. Did you run this one by your holocaust-surviving parent?

Actually, from what i have witnessed and researched for 25 years, i have come to see it as a mass-scale dumbing down of our own bodies and human immune systems....at pharma's profit. And the gov looks the other way....even as people/children die or become permanently damaged, within hours/days after receiving a vax, any correlation going back to the vaccine that killed the individual is denied.

An advocacy group for these people would not be of interest to the government.

There is no such thing as unbiased information. Though recently I have found it nice that If I feel like believing something off the wall I can find all sorts of information that will coincide with my beliefs for the week.

Well this thread turned itself into Goodwin's Rule quicker than expected (for those unfamiliar, this is a comment made by a man called Mike Goodwin that all internet discussions will eventually end up with someone comparing someone's beliefs to Hitler or the Nazi's!).

or…the ad hominem attack!

Someone said something we can pick on! Lets collectively attack that or her and not discuss the topic.

Perhaps if we make her look bad enough it will have a halo effect - and people will discredit other things she says.

Lastly, I would like it if the pro-vax camp listed their resources. I find that these forums are dominated by the selective or non-vax crowd posting studies, resources, etc and then the pro-vax people come on and try to discredit them. They rarely post their own resources - just bash others.

Fwiw, my own resource is the CDC website plus whatever mainstream information I can dig up on the internet with regard to Canadian statistics. Crunching the numbers of incidence rates of serious diseases compared to the stated rate of reaction of vaccines has made me decide not to vaccinate.

And I am actually speechless than anyone would honestly compare the millions of doctors across the world who provide vaccinations to save children from uneccessary and deadly diseases to Nazi's running concentration camps. I can only resort to point out this post:

You are not speechless. You are using words, and you are using them to misquote me. I never compared doctors to Nazis; I never even mentioned either doctors or Nazis.

Let's look at what I said again, shall we?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taximom5

I'm comparing an advocacy group supporting holocaust survivors--who had to deal with a government looking the other way as they were mistreated--with an advocacy group supporting people injured by vaccines--who have to deal with a government looking the other way as they are mistreated.

There is no such thing as unbiased information. Though recently I have found it nice that If I feel like believing something off the wall I can find all sorts of information that will coincide with my beliefs for the week.

You are right about this. and if any parents are starting the vax research/decision 100%pro or 100%anti, fully decided, well, i'm sure they will find plenty of "sources" for whatever their view.

I started reseraching vax before my dd was born. I was leaning pro vax but had questions. I was overwhelmed in the beginning. I started with the Dr. Sears book, NVIC site, cdc pinkbook, and WHO site (since I live outside US). To a certain extent, I was frustrated that neither the Dr. Sears book, nor NVIC, clearly says "no" or "yes." I wanted an easy choice. I think both Sears book and NVIC do a good job of laying out lots of information - the disease, the vax, scarying you both ways and then leaving you to decide. That is why I would call both "unbiased" although clearly, there is no unbiased info.

I don't see NVIC as a disreputable source because they support informed consent, vaccine safety, and advocate for vaccine injured.

...and I don't think anyone can say 100% that 100% of the time patients are given 100% informed consent, that vaccines have always been and are currently 100% safe, and that there has never, ever ever, in the whole entire world, ever been a vaccine reaction or permanent injury caused by vaccines.

Mother of two living in UK. Daughter (2007) born in USA, son (2010) born here. I'm pro natural birth, midwife care, breastfeeding, co-sleeping, baby wearing and a keen advocate of cloth diapering. I'm a full time working research scientist (physical sciences). Vaccines save lives.

Lastly, I would like it if the pro-vax camp listed their resources. I find that these forums are dominated by the selective or non-vax crowd posting studies, resources, etc and then the pro-vax people come on and try to discredit them. They rarely post their own resources - just bash others.

Ok, I'll start. Prosciencemum, you use Michael Specter as a source for discrediting NVIC:

Quote:

Originally Posted by prosciencemum

"Michael Specter has described the NVIC as "the most powerful anti-vaccine organization in America, and its relationship with the U.S. government consists almost entirely of opposing federal efforts aimed at vaccinating children."

In Denialism, New Yorker staff writer Michael Specter reveals that Americans have come to mistrust institutions and especially the institution of science more today than ever before. For centuries, the general view had been that science is neither good nor bad-that it merely supplies information and that new information is always beneficial. Now, science is viewed as a political constituency that isn't always in our best interest.

..huh, maybe because Americans can now find the ways govt health officials are in bed with big pharma? Or maybe because we can learn about the history of medical science that hasn't been in our best interest - DES, thalidomides, Vioxx, reactions to DTP, OP, SV40, twilight sleep for childbirth, history of bfing vs. formula, questionable ethics in vaccine development, I'm sure someone on this board has a list pages long....

...oh yeah, that's right, mainstream med has never made a mistake, has always done everything in the best interest of the patient, and has never hurt anyone.

I don't think there are many unbiased sites, and I don't think there are many balanced ones, either.

I am pretty sure that no matter what site someone lists as a resource, someone else can come on and discredit it. And round and round it goes.

This leaves new parents in a very unfortunate position.

Start with raw data, read arguments from both sides (keeping in mind they both have biases and a thesis they are trying to support) and take it from there.

One thing I do is go to the articles and studies discussed on mothering and then click on their sources or the original article they are siting. Example: someone lists an article on Mercola. Mercola is definitely biased, but they will link to their source. Go to the source and read it. Follow the trail to the original study. You can also plunk the original studies name into google scholar or some such thing and see what other info pops up.

Your link to "All Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric is Conspiracy Theory. Yes, You Too" opinion piece was one of the most ridiculous articles I've ever read. If this article has influenced parents to vaccinate, I have lost all hope in humanity!

The author is free to have this opinion, but in MY opinion, the entire piece is absurd!

"This is the sickest species the world has ever known."
Dr.John Bergman, speaking about the human species.

I think parents ought to research for themselves, consider both "pro-vax" and "non-vax" material, statistics, etc, keep an open mind and decide for themselves what to believe. Like an earlier post said, I too have compared rates of vaccine reactions to the incedence of infection by "vaccine-preventable" diseases, and I have also considered if the "vaccine-preventable" diseases are deadly or can have lifelong effects. I've chosen not to vax, thats just me.

I think it would be great if parents who are focused on the vaccine issue would first get a solid base of knowledge about the immune system and microbiology first, prior to reading the opinion pieces. It's putting the cart before the horse to jump straight to reading studies, and it makes it easy to get snookered by anyone calling themselves "experts".

At home amongst the redwoods To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. with my husband and my son, born 7/5/11, and #2 due in October 2015 To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Instant CNM, just add To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. !

I think it would be great if those who believe that we should get each and every vaccine currently recommended actually take a good hard look at the position of those who question the safety of vaccines. Every response I see to those who question the safety of vaccines is an all-out attack on the questioner.

Age of Autism's Julie Obradovic, mother of a child whose vaccines caused mercury poisoning, beautifully states the position of those who advocate for safer vaccines:

When you stop and actually THINK about it, the people who defend the current vaccine program as is, have not had to live with adverse effects of vaccines.

The people who are complaining that vaccines have not been adequately tested for safety and efficacy are the ones who have suffered (or whose children have suffered) severe adverse effects from vaccines.

We need to ask why would the first group try to shut the second group up.

I think it would be great if those who believe that we should get each and every vaccine currently recommended actually take a good hard look at the position of those who question the safety of vaccines. Every response I see to those who question the safety of vaccines is an all-out attack on the questioner.

Quote:

This may surprise a lot of people, but there actually isn't an "anti-vaccine movement” (from taximom5's above link)

This is a really important point.

Most people questioning vax safety, calling for more research/better standards, interested in selective/delayed schedules, and/or defending rights to exemptions are NOT anti-vax.

A lot of those people, and people here on these boards, have children who have had reactions, and I'm sure they 1. wish it had never happened to their child, 2. want to prevent it from happening to other children, 3. wish vaccines were safer and more was known about reactions/outcomes, and 4. want to defend the ability of parents and individuals to have information and be able to choose.

I haven't seen too many people saying that all vax are always bad, no one should receive any, all vax campaigns should be shut down, etc.

(well I'm sure there are plenty of people saying that but not as many as saying vaccines are totally safe, work, are "science" and should be mandatory)

I have never seen a non-vaxing parent tell a vaxing parent that it should be illegal for them to give their child MMR. I have seen vaxing parents saying the opposite to non-vaxers, the vaccination should be mandatory and forced.

The absolute vehemency of the pro-vax side, the absurdity of their attacks on vax questioners, and sometimes their propagandish pro-vax information really really made me more suspicious when I started researching.

(and yes I know there is plenty of propaganda rubbish about non-vaxing, but I am specifically referring to the lack of detailed information in mainstream publications.)

For example I was looking at another thread here today about MMR for nursing mom. The mainstream sites I checked and even CDC say its ok and safe - a few mention it is thought that rubella can transmit through bm but it's a minute possibility and no consequence. Then I find the Merck insert and some study saying um, actually rubella appears to transmit through bm a lot more than any of those sources are admitting, (and even causing mild clinical illness).

Why is this hidden? Does the pro-vax side understand how this makes a parent feel, when they find something like this? Why couldn't they put that info in the mainstream articles? ... oh yeah, because I don't understand science and don't have a medical degree and don't have the capacity to understand what I am reading...

I don't see crazy anti-vax radical conspiracy theorists causing paranoia --- I see the pro-vax side doing that just fine by themselves.